Case 2203279/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Carter v Virtus Holdco Limited Heard at London Central (by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2203279/2025
- Decision date
- 23 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Carter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against Virtus Holdco Limited. Employment Judge Shukla sat alone at London Central by CVP.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. The tribunal found that the discrimination claims, including disability, age and sex discrimination, were also out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time; those complaints will proceed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds; the discrimination complaint will proceed and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds; the discrimination complaint will proceed and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds; the discrimination complaint will proceed and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.